Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito
FrancoAngeli Journals

Regular Articles

N. 1 (2022)

Looking at oneself in the mirror of the others. Modelisation and implications of a study on human reflexivity starting from semiotics and psychoanalysis

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rpc1-2022oa13976
Inviata
22 giugno 2022
Pubblicato
13-09-2022

Abstract

The mirror is a very widespread tool in human life. It works as an optical device that recreates the image of an object placed in front of it. The relation of the human being with the mirror is very important: we find a pervasiveness and diffusion of mirrors in everyday life, but also in stories and legends, in folklore and mythology. At a certain step of his development, the child is able to recognise himself in the reflected image of a mirror. We observe a strong cultural intra-subjective and inter-subjective recursivity in the construction of the mirroring experience as a model of truth and lie, identity and otherness, knowledge and ignorance. Starting from the debate between two semioticians – Umberto Eco and Juri Lotman – on the semiotic value of the mirror, the authors develop the topic of reflexivity as a psychic process by examining it in the light of various psychoanalytic contributions. Reflexivity and the psychodynamic relationship with one’s own reflected image are developed by centralising the importance of an ongoing and deeply dialogic process between identity and otherness, continuity and transformation.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Abbey, E., Valsiner, J. (2004). Emergence of Meanings Through Ambivalence. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Art. 23.
  2. Andreas–Salomé, L. (1921). Narzißmus als Doppelrichtung [The Dual Orientation of Narcissism]. Imago, 7, 4: 361-386.
  3. Aguayo, P. (2011) La teoría de la abducción de Peirce: lógica, metodología e instinto. Ideas y valores, 145, 33-53.
  4. Bacchini, F. (1995). Riflessioni sugli specchi. Il Cannocchiale, 3, 211-224.
  5. Bacchini, F. (2017). Lo status semiosico dei fenomeni speculari/On the semiosic status of mirror phenomena. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 11(1), 43-58.
  6. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Toward a reworking of the Dostoevsky book. In C. Emerson (ed.), Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics, 283-302. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.
  7. Baltrusaitis, J. (1978). Le Miroir. Essai sur une légende scientifique. Révélations science-fiction et fallacies. Paris: Elmayan.
  8. Barros, M., Fossa, P., De Luca Picione, R. et al. (2020). Private Speech and Imagination: The Liminal Experience Between Myself and Others. Hu Arenas, 3, 458-469. DOI: 10.1007/s42087-020-00110-0.
  9. Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2004). Mentalization-based treatment of BPD. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18 (1), 36-51.
  10. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature. A necessary unity. New York: Dutton.
  11. Grotto, R. L., Borozan, M., & Battilotti, G. (2021). Infinite Singletons and the Logic of Freudian Theory. Language and Psychoanalysis, 10(2), 46-62.
  12. Burks, A. (1946) Peirce’s theory of abduction. Philosophy of Science, 13(4): 301-306. DOI: 10.1086/286904.
  13. Carli, R. (2011). Divagazioni sull’identità [Parenthesis on identity]. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, 2, 10-17.
  14. Carli, R., Donatiello, G., & Leone, L. (2021). Questions about mirror neurons. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, 1, 14-37.
  15. Carli, R., & Paniccia, R. M. (2003). L’analisi della domanda. Teoria e intervento in psicologia clinica. Bologna: il Mulino.
  16. Carotenuto, A. (1997). Il fascino discreto dell’orrore. Milano: Bompiani.
  17. Cassirer, E. (1923-29). Filosofia delle forme simboliche. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1961.
  18. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  19. De Luca Picione, R. (2015a). La Mente come Forma. La Mente come Testo. Un’indagine semiotico-psicologica dei processi di significazione. Milano: Mimesis Edizioni.
  20. De Luca Picione, R. (2015b). The idiographic approach in psychological research: The challenge of overcoming old distinctions without risking to homogenize. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 49, 360-370.
  21. De Luca Picione, R. (2017a). La funzione dei confini e della liminalità nei processi narrativi. Una discussione semiotico dinamica. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education, 9(2), 37-57.
  22. De Luca Picione, R. (2017b). Il fantasma in psicoanalisi, un dispositivo che articola la “statica” e la “dinamica” temporale della significazione. European Journal of Psychoanalysis. Disponibile all’indirizzo: www.journalpsychoanalysis.eu/il-fantasma-in-psicoanalisi-un-dispositivo-che-articola-la-statica-e-la-dinamica-temporale-della-significazione/.
  23. De Luca Picione, R. (2019). Mirrors and Reflexive processes: From looking oneself in the mirror to sensemaking one’s own experience. Insidious paths between semiotics, cultural psychology and dynamic psychology. In W. J. Silva Filho & L. Tateo (eds.). Thinking about Oneself. The Place and Value of Reflection in Philosophy and Psychology (pp. 123-139). Springer.
  24. De Luca Picione, R. (2020a). The Semiotic Paradigm in Psychology. A Mature Weltanschauung for the Definition of Semiotic Mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 639-650. DOI: 10.1007/s12124-020-09555-y.
  25. De Luca Picione, R. (2020b). La proposta dell’Idiographic Science: discussione degli assunti teorici, epistemologici e metodologici di un possibile approccio idiografico in psicologia. Ricerche in Psicologia, 2, 389-432. DOI: 10.3280/RIP2020-002001.
  26. De Luca Picione, R. (2021a). Models of semiotic borders in psychology and their implications: From rigidity of separation to topological dynamics of connectivity. Theory & Psychology, 31(5), 729-745.
  27. De Luca Picione, R. (2021b). The Dynamic Nature of the Human Psyche and its Three Tenets: Normativity, Liminality and Resistance - Semiotic Advances in Direction of Modal Articulation Sensemaking. Human Arenas, 4(2), 279-293.
  28. De Luca Picione, R. (2021c). Metapsychology of borders: Structures, operations and semiotic dynamics. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 23(4), 436-467. DOI: 10.1080/13642537.2021.2000463.
  29. De Luca Picione, R., Freda, M. F. (2016a). Borders and Modal Articulations. Semiotic Constructs of Sensemaking Processes Enabling a Fecund Dialogue Between Cultural Psychology and Clinical Psychology. Journal of Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 29-43.
  30. De Luca Picione, R., Freda, M. F. (2016b). The processes of meaning making, starting from the morphogenetic theories of Renè Thom. Culture and Psychology, 22 (1), 139-157.
  31. De Luca Picione, R., & Freda, M. F. (2016c). Possible use in psychology of threshold concept in order to study sensemaking processes. Culture & Psychology, 22(3), 362-375.
  32. De Luca Picione, R., & Freda, M. F. (2022a/in press). The otherness in the constitution of the psyche: arguments from psychoanalysis and cultural psychology. In P. Fossa (ed.). New perspectives on inner speech. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  33. De Luca Picione, R., & Freda, M. F. (2022b/in press). The contribution of semiotics for psychological disciplines: a focus on dynamic sensemaking processes in the human experience. In A. Biglari (ed.), Open Semiotics, Paris: L’Harmattan.
  34. De Luca Picione, R., & Lozzi, U. (2021). Uncertainty as a constitutive condition of human experience: Paradoxes and complexity of sensemaking in the face of the crisis and uncertainty. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education: Subject, Action & Society, 1(2), 14-53.
  35. De Luca Picione, R., & Valsiner, J. (2017). Psychological functions of semiotic borders in sense-making: Liminality of narrative processes. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 532-547.
  36. De Luca Picione, R., Martino, M. L., & Freda, M. F. (2018). Modal articulation: The psychological and semiotic functions of modalities in the sensemaking process. Theory and Psychology, 28 (1), 84-103. DOI: 10.1177/0959354317743580.
  37. De Luca Picione, R., Martino, M. L., & Troisi, G. (2019). The Semiotic Construction of the Sense of Agency. The Modal Articulation in Narrative Processes. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 53(3), 431-449. DOI: 10.1007/s12124-019-9475-9.
  38. Di Nola, A. M. (1993). Lo specchio e l’olio. Le superstizioni degli italiani. Roma: Laterza.
  39. Eco. U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.
  40. Eco, U. (1984). Mirrors. In Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (pp. 202-226). Palgrave: Macmillan UK.
  41. Esposito, G., Freda, M. F., & De Luca Picione, R. (2016). Reflexivity or “Reflexivities” in Higher Education: conceptualizing unique reflexive
  42. process. In M.F. Freda, J. Gonzàlez-Monteagudo & G. Esposito (2016) (eds.). Working with Underachieving Students in Higher Education: Fostering Inclusion through Narration and Reflexivity (pp. 32-42). Abingdon: Oxon; New York: NY; Routledge.
  43. Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self-organization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 679-700.
  44. Suarez-Deluchi, N., & Fossa, P. (2020). Vygotsky’s inner language and its relation to the unconscious system of Freud. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 101: 2, 257-272. DOI: 10.1080/00207578.2020.1726710.
  45. Fossa, P., & Sanhueza, M. I. (2022). The experience of time in symbol formation process. Current Psychology (Online First), 1-13. DOI:
  46. 1007/s12144-022-03099-7.
  47. Fossa, P., & Pacheco, C. (2022). Reflective and pre-reflective Inner Speech. In P. Fossa (ed.). New Perspectives on Inner Speech. Springer.
  48. Frazer, J.G. (1994). The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  49. Freda, M. F, De Luca Picione, R., & Esposito, G. (2015). Reflexivity. Applying a reflexive process to an educational context. In P. Marsico, R. Ruggeri & S. Salvatore (eds.). Reflexivity and Psychology (pp. 195-225). Charlotte (NC): Information Age Publishing.
  50. Freda, M. F. (2008). Narrazione e intervento in psicologia clinica. Costruire, pensare e trasformare narrazioni fra «logos» e «pathos». Napoli: Edizioni Liguori.
  51. Freud, S. (1917). Mourning and Melancholia. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 16 (pp. 243-258). London: The Hogarth Press.
  52. Freud, S. (1919). The ‘Uncanny’. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 17 (pp. 217-256). London: The Hogarth Press.
  53. Gallese, V., Migone, P., & Eagle, M. N. (2006). La simulazione incarnata: i neuroni specchio, le basi neurofisiologiche dell’intersoggettività e alcune implicazioni per la psicoanalisi. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, XL, 3, 543-580.
  54. Lauro Grotto, R. (2021). Symmetrization, mirroring and external reality: an ‘inner’ perspective. European Review, 29(2), 181-196.
  55. Jakobson, R. 1971. Selected writings. Berlin: Mouton.
  56. Jung, C. G. (1934-1954). The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. In Collected Works, Vol. 9 Princeton, NJ: Bollingen.
  57. Kaës, R. (2013). Il Malessere. Roma: Borla.
  58. Kohut, H. (1976). Narcisismo e analisi del Sé. Torino: Boringhieri.
  59. Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  60. Kull, K. (2009). Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: the semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive semiotics, 4(Supplement), 8-27.
  61. Lacan, J. (2006). Ecrits: The first complete edition in English. WW Norton & Company.
  62. Levin, J. I. (1997). Lo specchio come potenziale oggetto semiotico. In M. Galassi & M. De Michiel (eds.). IL simbolo e lo specchio. Scritti della scuola semiotica di Mosca-Tartu (pp. 133-152). Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
  63. Lotman, J. (1985). La semiosfera. L’asimmetria e il dialogo nelle strutture pensanti. Venezia: Marsilio.
  64. Lotman, J. (1997). La semiotica dello specchio e della specularità. In M. Galassi & M. De Michiel (eds.). IL simbolo e lo specchio. Scritti della scuola semiotica di Mosca-Tartu (pp. 127-129). Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
  65. Lotman, Y. M. (2005). On the semiosphere. Σημειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies, 33(1), 205-229.
  66. Marmarosh, C. L., & Mann, S. (2014). Patients’ selfobject needs in psychodynamic psychotherapy: How they relate to client attachment, symptoms, and the therapy alliance. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 31(3), 297.
  67. Marsico, G., Ruggieri, R. A., & Salvatore, S. (eds.) (2015). Reflexivity and psychology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  68. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
  69. Molina, M. E., & Del Rio, M. T. (2009). Dynamics of Psychotherapy Processes. En J. Valsiner, P. Molenaar, M. Lyra & N. Chaudhary (eds.). Handbook Dynamic Process Methodology in the Social and Developmental Science, Ch 27 (pp. 455-475). New York: SpringerVerlag.
  70. Molina M. E., Tapia-Villanueva L., Fossa P., Pereira X., Aspillaga C., De la Puerta S. (2019). A methodological approach to couples therapy using a conjoint relational drawing process for the description of and intervention with relational patterns and meaning-attributions. Journal of Family Therapy, 41(4), 582-598.
  71. Mucci, C., & Scalabrini, A. (2021). Traumatic effects beyond diagnosis: The impact of dissociation on the mind–body–brain system. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 38(4), 279.
  72. Neuman, Y. (2003). Processes and boundaries of the mind: Extending the limit line. New York: Academic/Plenum Publishers, Springer.
  73. Neuman, Y. (2008). Reviving the living: Meaning making in living systems. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
  74. Peirce, C. S. (1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  75. Ponzio, A. (2005). In altre parole. Milano: Meltemi.
  76. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 27, 169-192.
  77. Salvatore, S. (2016). Psychology in Black and White: The project of a theorydriven science. Charlotte, NC, USA: Information Age Publishing.
  78. Salvatore, S., & Freda, M. F. (2011). Affect, unconscious and sensemaking: A psychodynamic, semiotic and dialogic mode. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 119-135.
  79. Salvatore, S., & Zittoun, T. (2011), Cultural psychology and psychoanalysis: Pathways to synthesis (pp. 117–150). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  80. Salvatore, S., De Luca Picione, R., Cozzolino, M., Bochicchio, V., & Palmieri, A. (2022). The role of affective sensemaking in the constitution of experience. The affective pertinentization model (APER). Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56(1), 114-132.
  81. Salvatore, S., De Luca Picione, R., Bochicchio, V., Mannino, G., Langher, V., Pergola, F., Velotti, P., & Venuleo, C. (2021). The affectivization of the public sphere: the contribution of psychoanalysis in understanding and counteracting the current crisis scenarios. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education: Subject, Action, & Society, 1 (1), 3-30. DOI: 10.32111/SAS.2021.1.1.2.
  82. Santoro, G., Midolo, L. R., Costanzo, A., & Schimmenti, A. (2021). The vulnerability of insecure minds: The mediating role of mentalization in the relationship between attachment styles and psychopathology. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 85(4), 358-384.
  83. Scalabrini, A., Schimmenti, A., De Amicis, M., Porcelli, P., Benedetti, F., Mucci, C., & Northoff, G. (2022). The self and its internal thought: In search for a psychological baseline. Consciousness and Cognition, 97, 103244.
  84. Schimmenti, A., & Bifulco, A. (2015). Linking lack of care in childhood to anxiety disorders in emerging adulthood: the role of attachment
  85. styles. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20(1), 41-48.
  86. Schimmenti, A., & Caretti, V. (2016). Linking the overwhelming with the unbearable: Developmental trauma, dissociation, and the disconnected self. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 33(1), 106.
  87. Shaffer, L. S. (2005). From mirror self‐recognition to the looking‐glass self: Exploring the Justification Hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 47-65.
  88. Sonesson, G. (2015). The Mirror in-between Picture and Mind. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 11(2), 159-180.
  89. Stenner, P. (2018). Liminality and experience: A transdisciplinary approach to the psychosocial. Springer.
  90. Tagliagambe, S. (2011). I confini tra linea di demarcazione e porosità. In M. Guglielmi & M. Pala (a cura di). Frontiere Confini Limiti (pp. 221-244). Roma: Armando.
  91. Tagliapietra, A. (1991). La metafora dello specchio. Lineamenti per una storia simbolica. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  92. Tarsi P. P., & Salvatore, S. (2013). From Minimal Self to Self as Hypergeneralized Sign. Notes for an Integrated Model of Subjectivity. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia, 4(1), 11-21.
  93. Toomela, A. (2016). What are higher psychological functions?. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(1), 91-121.
  94. Valsiner, J., & De Luca Picione, R. (2017). La regolazione dinamica dei processi affettivi attraverso la mediazione semiotica. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia, 8(1), 80-109.
  95. Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundation of cultural psychology. New Delhi, India: Sage.
  96. Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
  97. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky. Springer Science & Business Media.
  98. Wallon, H. (1933). Les origines du caractère chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1949.
  99. Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Tavistock Publications.
  100. Zittoun, T. (2006). Transitions: Development through symbolic resources. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Metriche

Caricamento metriche ...